Ok, there is really nothing magical about the word "Philosophy". In fact, the same thing is true for Mortgage Loan (I'm not kidding--try it). The key is that you have to quit being star-struck by the idea and think about how it works.

Just follow me on this:

First, you have to think about the nature of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has a finite number of articles, so it is not possible to have an infinite sequence of article links--in other words, every sequence of articles must come to an end. The question is: in what way can any sequence of articles come to an end?

There are only two ways: You either enter a loop or find a dead-end (articles that contain no links). We can mostly exclude dead-end articles as they are rare. Wikipedia usually discourages the existence of articles that do not contain links, so you are unlikely to end up at one. With that said, the most common way that article trails end is by ending up in a loop (for example A -> B, B -> C, and C -> A ).

Now one of the unique things about loops is that any article that links to an article in a loop will eventually end up in the loop. for example, if article D links to E and E links to B, then we enter the loop of D -> E -> B -> C -> A -> B -> C -> A ... This is useful, because if we find a large loop that encompasses common concepts, then we we will find a large number of articles trails that will eventually enter the loop.

Now the question is, what happens when you start at Philosophy? Only two things can happen, so lets see:

Philosophy is in the middle of a very large loop. That means that any article that links to any one of these articles will eventually end up at philosophy. (Not only that, but any article that ends up in this loop will eventually end up at every element, including Mortgage Loan, thus my statement earlier).

Now look at that list and look at some of the words. Mathematics, Science, Fact, Concept, Business ... its nothing but a huge loop full of general words. Any Wikipedia article that has anything to do with Math, Science, Facts, Concepts, or Business is likely to end up in the loop (and as a result is likely to end up hitting Philosophy).

Its nothing special (and it is definitely not a "game"), its just a result of the nature in which Wikipedia works--the larger and more generic the concepts in a loop, the more likely that you are going to end up at an article contained in the loop.

hacked my way through 3 pages of other people`s paths to philosophy, but then gave up, so forgive me if some insightful soul has already said this but:

it`s not just random chance.

you can thank the language structure of encyclopedia entries for that. the first statements of articles are always reductive, because they`re trying to describe an unknown in broader terms. since we explain the world through reason, it stands that by making successively broader statements you`ll arrive at math and philosophy. the route you take to get there is a product of how obscure and specific your initial article was, in combination with the `noise`of which word exactly is the first link in each beginning sentence. sometimes this `noise`(or, as someone pointed out, bad editing) will produce a loop, but those will be the exception.

as pointed out by acatalepsy here: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=191251

If the claim is true (that you always end up at philosophy) then everything after philosophy is the same for all articles. Note that the philosophy rule holds for philosophy.

So if you run into anything in that loop, you've terminated. But this also means that the statement (you can reach X by clicking the first link) is true for all of the above as well. But the point stands that you will not reach any destination by clicking the first link.

I tried what the ALT text suggested. I started at "poison ivy" and, after dozens of clicks, did indeed wind up at philosophy!

It's possible this technique will fail if you get stuck in a loop, such as finding "logic" as the first word in an article and then, a few clicks later, arriving at another article where "logic" must be clicked.

Another fun fact: You can get to any Wikipedia article by intelligently clicking the linked words in other articles. For example, you want to look up "corn syrup," but the article currently displaying is "Urdu." Chrome has a weird little recurring bug that makes this technique the only way I can surf the web sometimes.

Seriously Wikipedia could be edited within two months to give an 55% to 95% change on articles leading to philosophy?!

And I justg tried it in German wiki, leaping over loops (which seems fair), it worked for three random articles.

Stargazer712

Ok, there is really nothing magical about the word "Philosophy". In fact, the same thing is true for Mortgage Loan (I'm not kidding--try it). The key is that you have to quit being star-struck by the idea and think about how it works.

But as far as I can see no one has said how this might be significant or if they think it is. You're offering a counter-hypothesis but there is no hypothesis to counter as yet. What are the criteria for it's being "nothing special" here, especially when it's to do with this partly arbitratry fact of the first hyperlink in an article?

scottmsul wrote:Wikipedia has been edited on purpose to lead all articles back to philosophy. This is a "game" inside wikipedia that has been going on for a while now.

If you really want to see how articles naturally lead, do it in French. You'll still get to philosophy occasionally but not nearly as much.

Let's see:In French, 8 random articles lead into large and small loops, while two lead to philosophy.

In German, 8 random articles lead to philosophy, with 2 ending in loops. Although it's tight a "philosophy-science-knowledge-truth-Wirklichkeit" loop, not just "philosophy." Wirklichkeit being a concept that Wikipedia can apparently only describe in German, Ukraninan, Russian, and old Belarusian,

meerta wrote:Seriously Wikipedia could be edited within two months to give an 55% to 95% change on articles leading to philosophy?!

Just modify the philosophy-loop to exclude philosophy, and the fraction will drop to less than 55%."Quantity is a [[Mathematics|mathematical]] concept and a kind of property that can exist as magnitude or multitude."

And nearly 95% of all articles will end in a quantity <-> mathematics-loop (not going via philosophy) until someone reverts the edit.Apart from some small loops, most articles go to some broad field like "mathematics", "europe", "language" and so on. So the fraction which actually leads to specific loops just depends on the link structure in these few, very important articles.

I've tested several articles that have earlier been claimed to go in a loop, though when I tested today the go to philosophy in VERY few clicks, seems like people are editing articles to conform to this rule.

Hey, wow, I just discovered something: If you pick a random forum thread, and click the next page link in it, and keep doing that, you'll notice that lots of people don't bother reading the whole thread and post functionally identical things!

[Meta-note: Going to try turning my sarcasm/be-a-dick meters down a few notches now.]

@Rabid: That article is what I would call 'badly formatted' it has several possible links you could add. The ones that I find defy the rule are those that are subsets or link to one of their subsets of a larger entity. E.g., Olympic weightlifting and Tsunamis, and Soviet Union.

I would be interesting to plot a list/graph of articles by loops size and commonality (how may articles feed into it's loop) and arrange them in a sort-of mandelbrot set.

You could rephrase the rules also: Any article that does not link to a more general topic, is poorly formatted. For instance, Tsunami should link to geology, Olympic weightlifting should go to Olympic etc.

Typing in "Creature" or "Organism" will get you in a loop between the two.

Also, the reason this works most of the time is that Wikipedia articles always start out with the abstract. So, for most articles you will always link to a page of an equal or higher level of abstraction until you come to terms defined only in philosophy.

An easy way to know if you are on the doomed path to Philosophy when playing this little game is if you ever come to a page that has to do with Humans (or humanities), science, academia, life, or mathematics. All of these are doomed to be described by philosophy at their most abstracted level. Anything is, really, its just a matter of whether or not you can find a loop that exists where a higher level of abstraction could have been!